Police Vs Cyclist

matttye

Cornucopia wrote: »

We've already been through this.

- Any road user can be asked by the Police to account for their behaviour on the road - which is sensible.

- There are a range of behaviours which the Police can issue a fixed penalty for - this is the Law.

- A fixed penalty notice requires the name and address of the offender, and the offender is required to provide it - again perfectly sensible.

- If the officer was unsatisfied that the name and/or address were genuine, he may ask for proof or arrest the offender for the purposes of verifying the name and address given - it can't be any other way, really.

I strongly doubt that the Court would take a huge amount of notice of any verbal comments at the scene. These are basic offences, where there is no question of intent - there is only the question of whether the offence was committed or not.

PACE states that an officer should time, date and record any significant statements verbatim in their pocket notebook and ask the suspect to sign it. Clearly a properly recorded and signed significant statement will carry more weight than an unsigned one.

I agree though that they're unlikely to be that bothered. In fact, you'd have to be insane to have a trial for such a small offence when the cost of a magistrates court trial is about £800 these days.

Guest101

matttye wrote: »

You're right in what you say but the court can only draw an adverse inference from failure to mention facts relied on in your defence (s.34 CJPOA 1994). You will not be putting forward a defence because you don't have one (if you're the cyclist). You can still put the prosecution to proof and not give evidence on your own behalf, in which case a different adverse inference can be drawn (s.35 CJPOA 1994).

Also, passing an officer a piece of paper with your details on it would not be held any differently by the court. To confirm this, you may or may not be aware that you can put in a pre prepared written statement at the police station to give your account. This is held to be the same as if you had given a verbal account during the interview.

It's not silence itself that causes an adverse inference to be drawn, it is the mentioning of facts when giving evidence that were not previously mentioned.

You're right. The giving of details satisfies the requirement to identify yourself, without getting into a discussion with the officer.

If arrested, legal counsel would be available. This is more of an on the street position.

Cornucopia

We'll never know the answer to the one relevant question from the video - did the cyclist dispute the PC's accusation or not.

If not, he was pointlessly winding up the PC, who was just trying to do his job, though not particularly well.

If he did dispute it, his best option would have been to state that and take it from there. Also, for someone asserting his right to silence, he did seem to say an awful lot.

I'm all for people using the Law for their defence, but it helps to understand it properly, first.

no1catman

RS2000. wrote: »

According to what legislation?

How about 'Obstruction'?

RS2000.

no1catman wrote: »

How about 'Obstruction'?

How is it obstruction?

If you're not obliged to produce any documents how are you obstruction the officers lawful execution of his duties? He has to be acting lawfully to be obstructed.

no1catman

Guest101 wrote: »

There is no legislation which requires you to produce id. Either as a cyclist or a pedestrian.

You must simply supply them with your name and address and if applicable date if birth.

But if they are not satisfied that the details you have supplied are correct - they may require further proof of identity. If you a pedestrian, for example, whose clothing fits the description of a recent burglary - you'd either give as much info to clear up any misunderstanding, or give a false name etc., and hope they'll fall for it!! Depends if you did it or not!
Many Police these days have their own cameras - so everything is recorded.
Or, if you are a road user - then if you don't obey the rules of the road and get caught, why have a tantrum - you got caught - you may not like it - but that's life!!

RS2000.

no1catman wrote: »

But if they are not satisfied that the details you have supplied are correct - they may require further proof of identity. If you a pedestrian, for example, whose clothing fits the description of a recent burglary - you'd either give as much info to clear up any misunderstanding, or give a false name etc., and hope they'll fall for it!! Depends if you did it or not!
Many Police these days have their own cameras - so everything is recorded.
Or, if you are a road user - then if you don't obey the rules of the road and get caught, why have a tantrum - you got caught - you may not like it - but that's life!!

Clutching at straws are we?

Pedestrians and cyclists are not required under English laws to produce ID. No ifs no buts.

no1catman

RS2000. wrote: »

Clutching at straws are we?

Pedestrians and cyclists are not required under English laws to produce ID. No ifs no buts.

'Straws' certainly not - Obstruction relates to Misrepresentation - if the details you give are not credible - then it's surely in your interest to prove they are correct - simple.
And, if you wish to remain silent - why? Silence, surely, is at an interview, when you think anything you say will make things worse, but at some point you'll have to say something either to the Police or the Court.
Maybe it's me - it just that I don't understand why the guy was so argumentative about it, if the Police ask a question - what's wrong with answering it, why all the attitude and back chat!

Herzlos

Because he's an !!!! who's trying to deflect from the fact he was caught out.

Retrogamer

RS2000. wrote: »

Clutching at straws are we?

Pedestrians and cyclists are not required under English laws to produce ID. No ifs no buts.

This.

Not everyone has photographic ID either so would be silly to have legislation that would require it.